Italian Court Clarifies Sentencing in Continuing Crimes

The Italian Court of Cassation has recently clarified the complex process of calculating punishment in cases involving continuing crimes and mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The ruling, issued on February 25, 2026 (Case No. 7517), emphasizes the autonomy of the primary crime when assessing sentencing, preventing aggravating factors in related offenses from negating mitigating factors in the main offense.

The Case: Family Harassment and Documented Injuries

The case stemmed from a conviction for family abuse (Article 572 of the Italian Criminal Code) and personal injury (Article 582 of the Italian Criminal Code) against a wife, along with assaults against a son-in-law. The Court of Appeal of Catanzaro had upheld the defendant’s responsibility, validating the testimonies of the injured parties and supporting medical reports, and applying the principle of continuation of crimes.

However, the sentencing phase sparked contention. The appellate judges equated generic mitigating circumstances with a contested aggravating circumstance. The defense argued that the aggravating circumstance applied solely to the secondary crime of injuries, while the primary crime of ill-treatment, used as the basis for sentence calculation, lacked specific aggravating factors.

The Principle of Law: No “Cumulative” Balancing

The Court of Cassation sided with the defense, affirming that when dealing with continuing crimes, the assessment of aggravating and mitigating circumstances (Article 69 of the Italian Criminal Code) must focus exclusively on those related to the most serious offense.

Established legal precedent dictates that the circumstances of the primary crime determine the base sentence. Circumstances related to secondary crimes only influence the increase in punishment due to the continuation of offenses (Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Italian Criminal Code).

In this instance, because the crime of ill-treatment had no aggravating circumstances, the base sentence should have benefited from the reduction due to the generic mitigating circumstances granted. Equating those mitigating circumstances with an aggravating factor from another crime (injuries) improperly increased the base sentence, violating principles of legality, and fairness.

Injuries vs. Beatings: Defining the Offense

While overturning the sentencing, the Supreme Court confirmed the assessment of responsibility. Notably, the Court upheld the classification of the injuries as “injuries” rather than “beatings” due to the presence of documented hematomas, reiterating that a significant functional anatomical alteration, such as a hematoma documented in a medical report, constitutes a “disease” under the law, distinguishing it from the less severe offense of simple beatings.

Referral Back to the Court of Appeal

The sentence was annulled regarding the determination of the sentence, and the case was referred back to another section of the Court of Appeal of Catanzaro. This section will re-evaluate the sentence, correctly applying the reduction for generic mitigating circumstances to the penalty for the ill-treatment, without considering the aggravating circumstances of the secondary crime during the balancing process.

Lawyer Sabrina Caporale